Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:20:26 -0700 | From | "Vadim E. Kogan" <> | Subject | Re: New Linux distribution - PSL |
| |
What a good explaination of whatewer I wanted to say! :)) CC'd to PSL maillist.
Twylite wrote: > > I think you're missing the point - I will admit that I haven't tried > the latest RedHat version(s) ; but then you've conceeded that RedHat > doesn't go heavy on security - its just that there is no 'out the box > usable' distribution of Linux. > > No matter what distribution I download, I have to spend a fair amount > of time customising and tweaking and (especially) patching and getting > the latest binaries in order to do what I need to do. In the most > recent case, that involved settings up a (fairly secure) non-routing > gateway that would provide SMTP, POP, a squid proxy, and SMB access to > the machines on our LAN. Its not a tall order - but it involves at > least the download or squid and samba separately, and a lot of effort > on the /etc directory to make the system look even vaguely like a > locked door. Also, Slackware (for one) typically enables a bunch of > (mostly unnecessary) daemons such as the sun RPC mapper (fine if you > use the stuff - but who does these days? Maybe I'm just in a different > environment). > > What I'd really like to see is a secure minimal base system, which you > install before any "distribution". The put the distribution on top, > according to the machine's function. For example, a 'server' > distribution > would get samba and squid (okay, I'm biased ;p ), and a 'workstation' > distribution may get some nice KDE stuff. > > I'm also sick of the distributions getting as bloated as an NT > installation - > I use maybe 20% of the *essential do not attempt to remove* binaries > regularly - and about 40% I never use ; sure they're there for > historical > reasons, and I can accept that as a good excuse for a Solaris or HP-UX > system, but this IS the 90's and we are talking about a system which > hopefully is progressive ... after all, if you need backwards > compatibility to that extent, why not get a 'back-compat' package ...? > > Linux has a very promising future IMHO, but unfortunately it can't cut > it as an effective answer to MS at the moment (much as I hate to say > so). > Although as a server it far outstrips anything else (also IMNSHO), it > does lack the ease of use required for a small company (without a > dedicated administrator) to use it. Also, the lack of application > support for critical tasks (such as, a decent wordprocessor or > spreadsheet - and I mean graphical and preferably free [leech]) makes it > ineffective as a workstation. > > But back to the original topic... > > I think debian (or slackware or redhat or whatever) could be greatly > improved if there existed a base, miminal, secure 'generic Linux' > system - say just a kernel, X Server (not manager, etc), libraries and > essential tools like a compiler and some scripting language (which > naturally would have to be PERL [I'm biased here too]). The compiler > of course would be optional ... but the idea being that there would > exist a standard base which all distributions would work off. The > specific package install method, binaries offered and interface would > then be package dependant ... but there would be some sort of guarentee > that all systems had certain binaries and certain tools/compilers/ > scripters that were common. > > Anyway, I'm waffling now ... okay, had my say, time to get back to > work (anyone know how to get Qt to compile on HP-UX when the X headers > are missing...? ;( ) > > Twylite > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |